Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Deeds Of Trust/Fee Clause Interpretation: Deed Of Trust Fees Clause Was Broadly Worded So As To Entitle Lender To Attorney’s Fees Award Against Borrower

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

$45,263.33 Was The Award After A Dismissal Based On Plaintiff Not Appearing At Trial.             In Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership, L.P., Case No. B268541 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 10, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff failed to appear at a scheduled trial such that his case against a lender was dismissed, a determination affirmed on appeal. […]

Fee Clause Interpretation: Telephone Leasing Defendant Not Entitled To Fees Against Plaintiff Successor Owners In Declaratory Relief Action Where Fee Clause Only Applied In Lease Between Defendant And Phone Provider

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

However, Defense Attorney’s Recordation Of Judgment Abstract Based On Including Fees As Costs Before Fee Motion Was Heard Troubled The Court Of Appeal, Which Ordered The Lien Removed.             In Labertew v. Whiteley, Case No. C077751 (3d Dist. July 10, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs, successors to the original owner on land where there was telephone equipment

Deeds Of Trust/Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Trust Deed Fees Clause Allowed For Fee Recovery By Lienholder Under Second Loan Based On Both Contract And Tort Theories

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

“To Protect Lien” Under Deed Of Trust Fees Clause Was Viewed As Broad In Ambit.             In Arefi v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Case No. B263947 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 2, 2018) (unpublished), a borrower brought various causes of action to set aside/cancel a trustee’s sale, to quiet title, and to obtain recovery under

Fee Clause Interpretation: Fee Recovery To Litigant Prevailing On Cross-Complaint With Mixed Tort/Contract Claims Properly Denied Because Fees Clause Only Related To More Narrow “Account” Issues

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Litigant Failed To Show Fee Entitlement.             Assuming that a fee motion is timely filed, the next big obstacle for a fee claimant is demonstrating – drum roll time! – fee entitlement. That obstacle was not cleared by appellant in Schneider v. Deam, Case No. A150027 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 29, 2018) (unpublished).            

Fee Clause Interpretation, Interpleader, Section 1717: Bank Winning Fee Award For Prosecuting Interpleader Cross-Complaint And Successfully Defending Against Plaintiff’s Complaint Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Interpleader, Cases: Section 1717

Appellate Court Offered Guidance, Including That No Section 1717 Adverse Fee Award On Plaintiff’s Complaint Could Be Granted On Grounds Advanced By Lender.             Plaintiff octogenarian sued her lender on various theories stemming from lender’s failure to disburse timely insurance proceeds covering a fire loss.  In response to plaintiff’s Complaint, Lender filed an interpleader cross-complaint. 

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation:  $66,103 Fee Award Against Losing Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Affirmed Based On Broad Fees Clause And Common Intersection of Complaint And Cross-Complaint Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Underlying Dispute Related To A Grading Of Dr. J’s 1972 Trading Card.             This next case illustrates an interesting application of attorney’s fees principles we have seen in many cases to a dispute over grading of a Dr. J trading card.  Let’s get to it.             In Knafo v. Collectors Universe, Inc., Case No. G055112

Assignment, Deed Of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation:  Defendant Lender Entitled To Fee Award Under Deed Of Trust Fees Clause For Winning Conversion Claim Against Plaintiff’s Assignee

Cases: Assignment, Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fees Clause Was Broad Enough To Encompass Conversion Claim And Assignees Were “On The Hook.”             In Sanchez v. El Monte Investments, LLC, Case No. B276423 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 27, 2018) (unpublished), former property owner sued her lender for conversion of certain insurance proceeds retained by the lender after fire damage to the

Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717:  Successful Attorneys On Contract Claim Properly Granted Fees; Successful Plaintiff On Tort Claims Properly Denied Fees; And Plaintiff Improperly Denied Costs As Prevailing Party With Net Judgment In Malpra

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Many Cross-Over Fees And Costs Issues Considered By Appellate Court In This One.             In Davidson v. Southwick, Case No. E066978 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 26, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff client successfully won a malpractice action based on various torts but lost a contract claim against certain attorney parties, winning a compensatory jury verdict of

Fee Clause Interpretation/Prevailing Party:  Fifth District Reverses Costs Denial, Remands For Redo On Fee Clause Interpretation, And Reverses 128.7 Sanctions Award

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Appellate Court Did De Novo Review On Most Issues.             In a fairly lengthy decision, the Fifth District basically reversed trial court determinations on fees and costs issues in Johnson v. Johnson, Case No. F073191 (5th Dist. Feb. 26, 2018) (unpublished), involving a dispute between siblings arising out of their real estate partnership where the

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717:  Fifth District, In Split Decision, Decides That Permissive Fee Clause Is Enforceable By Its Terms, With Section 1717 Not Applying

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Dissent Argues That Section 1717 Does Have Precedence In This Situation, So That Fees To Prevailing Party Should Be Determined Upon A Remand.             In City of Dinuba v. Universal Biopharma Research Institute, Inc., Case No. F072497 (5th Dist. Feb. 20, 2018) (unpublished), City of Dinuba filed an unlawful detainer action against two defendants, although

Scroll to Top